« Impeachment hearings are congressional tee-ball | A Texas Democrat whom the Democrat establishment embraced has a big loss »
January 30, 2020

Democrats should be careful what they wish for in calling witness John Bolton

By Monica Showalter

Democrats, who have already had 17 witnesses in the Adam Schiff–led House basement impeachment hearings, while Republicans have had none, still want an 18th.

They're now demanding former national security adviser John Bolton, given the curiously timed leak of the book he's writing, on the front pages of the New York Times, right in the final throes of the Senate impeachment trial.

Two things suggest he might not be the magic bullet for Trump that they think he is.

First, this video has surfaced, showing what Bolton was saying back in August, less than a month after the infamous impeachment phone call:

This certainly would contradict the reports coming out today, that Bolton is reportedly writing in his book, claiming there was a harsh little quid pro quo for aid to Ukraine premised on a demand from the White House that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, who somehow ended up with an $83,000-a-month no-show job from Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian energy company.  Sure doesn't sound like it with this video, and not surprisingly, Trump is tweeting it.

Second, maybe Bolton isn't so bad anyway.  There's a possibility that he didn't leak the advance galleys of his book to the Times (however remote), and the Times is distorting what he wrote to sell newspapers:

Steven Hayward, at Power Line, who knew and worked with Bolton firsthand, has some superb insights about the man:

I have a high opinion of Bolton. I may revise this later, but for the moment, I'll stand with my prior judgment. We should take the media reports just now with a large lump of salt. It is entirely possible that Bolton, if he testifies in the Senate, will say that Trump legitimately believed that Ukraine was a center of election interference in 2016, and that Biden was involved in it, which would turn the tables on the Democrats, as it would make the conditions of the aid wholly legitimate. Scott Adams thinks this might be the case.

I share his reluctance to hate on Bolton without more evidence, Bolton up until now has been a hero of sorts to the right, even if he had differences with Trump and other elements of the right. 

Could Bolton be a case of "be careful for what you wish for" to the Democrats?

They have a long history of drum rolls to Trumpageddon that fall flat with a thud.

I suspect this would be the case, too, if Bolton really is called as a witness.  All signs are now pointing to Republicans voting against holding witnesses.  But if it happens, either Bolton will disappoint Democrats or his credibility will be in tatters.

Democrats, who have already had 17 witnesses in the Adam Schiff–led House basement impeachment hearings, while Republicans have had none, still want an 18th.

They're now demanding former national security adviser John Bolton, given the curiously timed leak of the book he's writing, on the front pages of the New York Times, right in the final throes of the Senate impeachment trial.

Two things suggest he might not be the magic bullet for Trump that they think he is.

First, this video has surfaced, showing what Bolton was saying back in August, less than a month after the infamous impeachment phone call:

This certainly would contradict the reports coming out today, that Bolton is reportedly writing in his book, claiming there was a harsh little quid pro quo for aid to Ukraine premised on a demand from the White House that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, who somehow ended up with an $83,000-a-month no-show job from Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian energy company.  Sure doesn't sound like it with this video, and not surprisingly, Trump is tweeting it.

Second, maybe Bolton isn't so bad anyway.  There's a possibility that he didn't leak the advance galleys of his book to the Times (however remote), and the Times is distorting what he wrote to sell newspapers:

Steven Hayward, at Power Line, who knew and worked with Bolton firsthand, has some superb insights about the man:

I have a high opinion of Bolton. I may revise this later, but for the moment, I'll stand with my prior judgment. We should take the media reports just now with a large lump of salt. It is entirely possible that Bolton, if he testifies in the Senate, will say that Trump legitimately believed that Ukraine was a center of election interference in 2016, and that Biden was involved in it, which would turn the tables on the Democrats, as it would make the conditions of the aid wholly legitimate. Scott Adams thinks this might be the case.

I share his reluctance to hate on Bolton without more evidence, Bolton up until now has been a hero of sorts to the right, even if he had differences with Trump and other elements of the right. 

Could Bolton be a case of "be careful for what you wish for" to the Democrats?

They have a long history of drum rolls to Trumpageddon that fall flat with a thud.

I suspect this would be the case, too, if Bolton really is called as a witness.  All signs are now pointing to Republicans voting against holding witnesses.  But if it happens, either Bolton will disappoint Democrats or his credibility will be in tatters.